Anyone who has engaged me for even a short period of time, will hear me say, “What is your methodology?” Apparently there is some confusion as to what I mean by it, or why I am asking this question.

Primarily (albeit not exclusively) I use this question in discussing the Bible. I believe it is helpful in order to focus the discussion as to how the other person views it, and also reveals our own personal biases. It may even give us a chance to pause and reflect as to the viability of the process we use to make a claim and why it is not persuasive on those that may not agree with us.

Imagine two people discussing over who the smartest person in the world is. The debate quickly deteriorates to:

“Jan is.”“No, Jim is.”“No, Jan is.”“No, Jim is.”

And it turns out that the two people are using two different methodologies to determine “smart.” One may be using an IQ test (in which Jan prevails) and the other is using Grade Point Average (in which Jim prevails.) They can discuss and debate and outright fight until the cows come home, and neither will ever get the other one to agree, because they are using different standards.

Of course a third person may join in, who feels the number of published articles is how we determine the smartest person, a fourth may join in using another standard, and we watch it fragment into a mess.

Unless we agree, or at least recognize a mutual methodology, the debate will never even get off the ground. The two people may walk away with “IF we use IQ, then Jan is the smartest, but IF we use GPA, then Jim is the smartest.” We might disagree on the methodologies, but at the least we have gained an appreciation of an alternative position, using an alternative method.

One of the easiest demonstrations of this problem is in the field of inerrancy. A skeptic may point out what appears (to them) to be a contradiction, say in Judas’ death. They would point out that the Gospel of Matthew has Judas dying by hanging, the priests buying the field, and it being called a “Field of Blood” because it was purchased with “blood money.” (Matt. 27:3-8) The Book of Acts has Judas dying by evisceration, Judas buying the field, and his blood all over the place resulting in it being named “Field of Blood.” (Acts 1:18-19)

To the skeptic, the two different modes of death, two different purchasers, and two different reasons for the name of the Field, all in a relatively short account, add up to a contradiction.

However, the Christian inerrantist quickly points out that Judas’ body could have fallen, causing it to sustain further injury, that the priest’s purchase was in the form of agency on behalf of Judas (or vice versa) and that field of Blood could certainly have double meaning. Hence no contradiction.

“Ding!” And the fight is on…

After pages of posts which dredge up analogies and counter-analogies, and what is wrong with the other person’s analogies and “How can you not see that…?” Each walks away partially frustrated at the blindness of the other person and partially with the feeling of vindicating their particular position. Neither has remotely persuaded the other. The choirs of both camps have cheered (or jeered) as expected.

The debate never even had a chance to get off the ground because each party was approaching it with a different methodology. The skeptic was using a method that a contradiction exists, if literally taken on its face one account does not align with another account. The Christian was using the method that any feasible explanation that could possibly align the two accounts would prohibit it from being a contradiction.

We may smile at the idea of two people fighting over who is smarter, because of how many ways that can be determined, yet it is the same problem here, and rarely is it even discussed, let alone agreed upon. How many ways can a contradiction be determined?

Rather than wade in with swords drawn and shields up, I would prefer we first establish how we recognize a contradiction or not. We first establish a method by which we can determine if two accounts should be considered aligned, or that they disagree. Of course, both sides are wily enough to understand the import of methodology, and this, too, can degrade into dispute. But at least it is revealing, and generates further discussion.

For example, (continuing with inerrancy) if the Christian desires the methodology of any possible explanation eliminating the claim of contradiction, I would willingly agree. The question is whether we can stay wedded to it. I could then point out, using the method that “any possible explanation means no contradiction” how we could align any number of accounts. The Gospel of Peter records that Jesus stated on the cross, “O Power, My Power, why have you forsaken me?” Using the “any possible explanation methodology” this is easily aligned as Jesus having said it in addition to the “My God, My God…” Or we could state that the author of the Gospel of Peter was emphasizing how Jesus obtained his “Power” from God.

Using any possible explanation, we could eliminate almost all contradictions in all accounts of history. This renders inerrancy as not singular, but rather “designed” by reducing the requirement of determining a contradiction.

Simply put, the Bible would lose its special status of inerrancy, since by this methodology, many more books would be inerrant. It would no longer be a sign of divinity.

The danger of establishing a methodology is that we may be called to be consistent in it. If I claim Jim is the smartest because of GPA, and all of a sudden Joe has a higher GPA, my own methodology would force me to recognize Joe as smarter than Jim. In the same way, if we utilize “any human explanation” our own methodology would force us to recognize vast numbers of works that are equally inerrant. Making the very concept of an “inerrant Bible” about as unique as the fact that it is printed on paper.

Or another way in which methodology can dig deeper into the discussion is to question how certain verses are used in the manner most convenient for the person making the proposal.

At one time, in discussing Paul, I pointed out how he indicated he went to Jerusalem on two occasions, 14 years apart. (Gal. 1:18 – 2:1). However Acts indicates that it was at the initial meeting that Barnabas introduced Paul. (Acts 9:26-27) At least one apologist proposed a 14-year gap between the sentence in vs. 26 and the sentence in vs. 27.

Being me, I asked how someone came up with this method of inserting 14 year times, when none is even hinted at. I was criticized for asking the apologist for coming up with a system, when history does not provide us with enough information as to why the author wrote what they did.

Wait a minute. I am asking why the apologist is requesting, within their method, for me to read the verses differently than what is a straight rendition. If they can insert, solely to support their argument, a 14 year period between sentences, can I, equally, to support my argument, insert a 14 year period where I desire? And if they complain, can I equally assert I should not be under the requirement of determining what system an author uses?

No Christian apologist would allow me to insert time as desired, why would they expect me to accept it in them?

Don’t get me wrong, perhaps the methodology CAN be established. Perhaps one could point out how an author tended to combine their accounts by topic, rather than chronologically. If it was pointed out that an author talked solely about Herod, and after completing that account, reverted back to a story about James, and after competing that account, reverted back to a story about Paul, it may make sense to insert periods of time between sentences. Is that how the author of Acts wrote?

If one could establish that as a methodology, it would certainly bolster the claim of inserted time. Remember, it is the apologist making the claim that what would not be normative (that if a person is in Jerusalem in Sentence one, and is still in Jerusalem in Sentence two; it is the same trip) rather than shy away from showing why we should read it differently—bolster it! Don’t complain that we are asking too much—demonstrate your argument!

I find that each person, whether they realize it or not, are using some type of methodology to make determinations as to what historically happened.

Another example—I may point out I believe the Gospel of Peter is historically accurate.

An apologist may claim, “No, that was written too late.” Bam! We have our methodology. In order to determine what is historically accurate, apparently we are to use a cut-off date. It is timing that will determine historical accuracy.

But this presents two problems:

1) How does timing have anything to do with historical accuracy? What date does one use for our cut-off date? 100 CE? “Within the lifetime of eyewitnesses”?

Can we reasonably state that no person could lie prior to that date, and no person could be accurate after it? What if I had heard some tales about Jesus, and thought, “What a great character! I will write a fancy story about him” and completely make it up. Yet I write in 80 CE. Does that mean, under this method, we must determine it to be accurate?

Or we have another poor author that obtained his information directly from a Disciple. It is confirmed by Mary’s granddaughter. It is reiterated, in exact form, by another friend of another Disciple. But he has the gall to write in 150 CE. Too late? Can’t be true?

2) Can one stay consistent in this methodology? What about the Torah? It records events long before it was written. It is (I believe) a universal consensus that some of the stories were passed by oral tradition over at least 400 years. Is that too late? Within our “cut-off” date, why does the Tanakh get a pass, yet the New Testament adheres to such strict time-constraints?

Further, we have books written within this time frame. The Gospel of Peter could have been written prior to 100 CE. 1 Clement and the Epistle of Barnabas beat 2 Peter. Why are they excluded? Even within the timing method some “oops” occur.

(A parenthetical thought. Some may think I am being too harsh, too literal or too stringent by demanding a date. Remember, it was not me that proposed “too late” as a reason to exclude a certain book as being historically inaccurate. Even by the word “late” timing is implied.

I would agree that accounts recorded closer to the events may be more accurate, due to failing memories, but we must also consider the ability of the source to observe the events, their own bias, and an opportunity to modify. Since all of the books were written years after the events, all of them introduce these problems. The fact they were written in 50, 100 or 150 CE does not diminish that problem.

Besides, these are alleged to be inspired by an eternal God. He could write history at any time, and be accurate. Why is the New Testament limited to such an exacting time-frame? If God inspired an author to write of Joseph accurately over 400 years later, could he not do the same with Jesus?)

Or does one exclude a book because of it not being accepted by tradition? By the Church fathers? Again, we run into the same problems.

Which church fathers? Some questioned Revelation, some did not. Some questioned James, some did not. Many accepted 1 Clement, Epistle of Barnabas, and Shepherd of Hermas. Why did they become excluded, if we are using Church tradition?

Further, if we are to rely upon the Church fathers, what else do they tell of that within this method, we are to include as historical? Papias wrote that Judas was killed by a chariot. If we accept Church tradition, then Matthew and Acts are incorrect. Unless we hold to the earlier account. (Ah-ha! That “timing” method again. Did you catch it?) In which case Acts must be incorrect.

Or does one use doctrine to determine what is historically correct? Can one exclude the historicity of a book, simply because it is Gnostic?

This is a particularly revealing method. If the book makes claims as to Jesus’ statements which are unwelcome to the Christian, is it excluded, NOT on the basis of its accuracy, but on the doctrine contained therein. Doctrine the Christian does not like. This demonstrates a bias.

We all have bias, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. But we must be careful, due to our bias, to not exclude what actually happened, things we don’t want to happen. Orthodox Christianity does not want a Gnostic Jesus, and therefore is prone to a bias against it. Desire is a poor methodology.

Most likely, though, is that people use a combination of each of these methods. A combination that unwittingly manages to conform to exactly what the person wants to be true.

If your methodology is convenient, just to bolster your own argument, it is not as persuasive.

That is why I ask for methodology over and over, to the point I am sure many are tired of it. To see if we can break out of the mold of “This is what I want, how can I get there?” to “Can we be consistent in determining what happened?”

Rather than inspect Jan, and attempt to determine a method by which we can claim she is the smartest person, can we develop a method and live with the results, even if they are not Jan?

If a person presents an assertion as to an unusual or unique situation, such as a certain set of books being divine, or a set of miracles happening, or a complex reading of a straightforward sentence, I wonder how they come up with a way to differentiate and separate out these books, miracles and readings from all the others. I am curious to know the “why” they are different and the “how” we determine it.

That is the reason I so often ask for methodology.

5
comments:

How does agreeing on a methodology allow us to determine what is true? It doesn't. In your analogy of Jan vs Jim, it is a true that one is smarter than the other. How do we determine which one is smarter (that is, how can we know the truth)? Just because two people agree on a methodology of how to measure smartness, we haven't established truth. All we have are two people who agree on a method. Truth can't be determined by consensus!

Using any possible explanation, we could eliminate almost all contradictions in all accounts of history. This renders inerrancy as not singular, but rather “designed” by reducing the requirement of determining a contradiction.

I agree with this point. Contradictions between accounts given by two different people should not be considered resolved by any "possible" explanation. This is not what most apologists are asking for. Most want to say any "reasonable" explanation resolves a contradiction.

At one time, in discussing Paul, I pointed out how he indicated he went to Jerusalem on two occasions, 14 years apart. (Gal. 1:18 – 2:1). However Acts indicates that it was at the initial meeting that Barnabas introduced Paul. (Acts 9:26-27) At least one apologist proposed a 14-year gap between the sentence in vs. 26 and the sentence in vs. 27.

Where do you guys come up with this stuff? Please tell me how these two passages are a contradiction! Neither passage clearly tells us when Paul and Barnabas first met. I would agree that Acts implies Paul first met Barnabas on his first post-conversion trip to Jerusalem. Galatians mentions that Barnabas traveled with Paul on a second trip to Jerusalem. I don't see how this can be a contradiction.

Which methodology are you proposing we use to somehow force these two accounts into a contradiction?

Dennis, what a GREAT response. It demonstrates exactly the type of problem I am discussing here.

(By the by, I would agree that consensus is not a determinative of truth. “Because somebody says that somebody says that some God said” is worse. You do not accept such a determination of truth in religions you reject, equally, why should I accept a determination of truth in a religion I reject?)

Let’s look at this methodology on resolving an apparent contradiction—“Reasonable” explanation. We need to dig a little deeper, in order to effectively apply it, and the first question that pops right out is: “Reasonable to whom?”

Reasonable to an inerrantist? Why is this helpful? They have already committed to the position of inerrancy, and do not need an explanation. As long as there is any conceivable way in which the two or three passages could possibly align, even to the point of having events occur over and over (Peter denying Jesus nine times, for example) the inerrantist, presuming non-contradiction, will accept such an explanation as “reasonable.”

If our inerrantist is the “whom” in the “reasonable to whom?” this quickly deteriorates to an “any possible explanation” as being “reasonable.”

Or look at our Pauline dates. According to Paul’s own account in Galatians 1 & 2 after his conversion in Damascus, he waited three years before going to Jerusalem. Then he saw only James and Peter. 14 years later he returned to Jerusalem “this time with Barnabas.” A clear reading of various times, people he saw, and people he took.

Now read Acts 9. Written by an author that heard of these events from someone else. Not an eyewitness. He has Paul going to Jerusalem immediately after Damascus, ALL of the Disciples afraid of him, and then Barnabas took him, and they then accepted him.

A possible explanation is that Luke is taking of Paul’s Damascus conversion in the end of vs. 25. Immediately (without referring to doing so) skips ahead three years at the beginning of vs. 26. Notes he tried to join the Disciples (which Paul does not), skips the bit about Paul seeing James and Peter. Then, again with no reference, adds another 14 years between vs. 26 and vs. 27 and has Barnabas in the picture.

Most people would not find this explanation, on its face, as reasonable. Yet to an inerrantist, committed to inerrancy, because it is possible it becomes “reasonable.”

Reasonable to whom? The errantist? The same problem. We already recognize that humans will contradict each other. Another passage in the Bible in which two authors talk about the same event(s) and disagree with each other? *shrug* No surprise. For us, the insertion of random years, the skipping of details, the conflicting dates are NOT a reasonable explanation.

Reasonable to whom? A neutral? Someone who is not wedded to either idea? I would think this is the best possible hope, yet again the inerrantist will lose. Because humans, recognizing how other accounts contradict, will be more inclined to believe a contradiction rather than blind insertion of years, just to maintain the biased position that the two accounts must align.

Reasonable to whom? A majority of all? If you do not like consensus to determine truth, I would think a majority would be even worse.

And once you pick the group or persons that determine the reasonableness of the explanation, will you stay consistent? Assume you pick that it must be reasonable to an inerrantist. There are inerrantist Muslims that insist the Qur’an is non-contradictory. If we must accept the Christian inerrantist as determining the reasonableness of the explanation of the Bible, must we not, equally, accept the Muslim inerrantist as determining the reasonableness of the explanation of the Bible?

Or the Mormon of the Book of Mormon? Or the Christian Scientist on Science and Health with a Key to Scriptures? This will, again, mean many more books are inerrant, and just as Divine as the Bible.

What (sadly) starts to emerge as we discuss this is that other religions are not given the same courtesy as Christians. The methodology (whether stated or not) is that Christians get to decide what is “reasonable” and what is not. If Muslims say their explanations are reasonable, they are ignored—they aren’t Christians. If Mormons say their explanations are reasonable, they are ignored—they aren’t Christians. If an atheist scratches his head, and says, “What? That is not reasonable” they can be ignored—they aren’t Christian.

Discussing methodology may not give us truth, but interacting with others, and attempting to discard biases as much as possible when determining truth will help us get closer. “It is true (or reasonable) because I say it is” is extremely bias, and does not get us any closer to any truth.

So what group decides what a “reasonable” explanation is?

This methodology either recognizes its inherent bias, that the person proffering it is the standard by which “reasonableness” is determined, or it must be further explained and tightened up, or it should be abandoned.

I hope, Dennis, you can see how simple tossing out a methodology, and having another inspect it, can give us a chance to develop better systems, and better ways and better methods by which we can make informed decisions about what is more likely true.

The methodology I propose is that if one account has elements that do not align with the other account, it is contradictory. The same method you use in life reading Newspapers, and on-line blogs. :-)

(By the by, I would agree that consensus is not a determinative of truth. “Because somebody says that somebody says that some God said” is worse.

I disagree. Surely being experienced in law you realize that a credible eyewitness is better than then consensus of 100 experts.

Reasonable to an inerrantist? Why is this helpful? They have already committed to the position of inerrancy, and do not need an explanation. As long as there is any conceivable way in which the two or three passages could possibly align, even to the point of having events occur over and over (Peter denying Jesus nine times, for example) the inerrantist, presuming non-contradiction, will accept such an explanation as “reasonable.”

I would also counter that an atheist is also biased and will look for any means to declare an explanation as unreasonable.

Or look at our Pauline dates. According to Paul’s own account in Galatians 1 & 2 after his conversion in Damascus, he waited three years before going to Jerusalem. Then he saw only James and Peter. 14 years later he returned to Jerusalem “this time with Barnabas.” A clear reading of various times, people he saw, and people he took.

No, that is not a clear reading. Galatians does not state that Paul only met Peter and James. It does say that these were the only two apostles Paul met. If we understand the difference between apostles and disciples, we realize that Galatians leaves the door open to the possibility that Paul also met other disciples such as Barnabas. It would be absurd to believe that Paul traveled to Jerusalem and met two apostles but did not see any disciples. That would analogous to me going to DC and meeting GW Bush but not seeing any Republicans.

Now read Acts 9. Written by an author that heard of these events from someone else. Not an eyewitness. He has Paul going to Jerusalem immediately after Damascus, ALL of the Disciples afraid of him, and then Barnabas took him, and they then accepted him.

Acts 9 ends with Paul escaping from Damascus and the next sentence starts off with "When he came to Jerusalem". It might be easier to infer that he went straight to Jerusalem had it said "Then he came to Jerusalem". The word "Then" implies a sequence. The word "When” does not imply any direct sequence.

Here are some important points that you are glossing over. Galatians doesn’t say how long Paul stayed in Damascus before going to Jerusalem. All we know is 3 years after Paul arrived in Damascus, he went to Jerusalem. Acts tells us that Paul lived in Damascus. We don’t know how long but we are told that after “many days the Jews conspired to kill him”. How long were “many days” to a second century author? When did this “many days” start? After he first moved in and made Damascus his home or after he made a reputation for himself? Did he stay in Damascus the whole time? We can’t know the answer to all of these questions so we can’t possibly tell if there is a conflict between Galatians and Acts.

A possible explanation is that Luke is taking of Paul’s Damascus conversion in the end of vs. 25. Immediately (without referring to doing so) skips ahead three years at the beginning of vs. 26. Notes he tried to join the Disciples (which Paul does not), skips the bit about Paul seeing James and Peter. Then, again with no reference, adds another 14 years between vs. 26 and vs. 27 and has Barnabas in the picture.

You're following a pattern that I frequently see when debating contradictions with skeptics. That is, said skeptic gives me a supposed contradiction, I come back and clearly show them why they are not interpreting the passage correctly, and the skeptic then jumps into other contradictions in an attempt of covering up for the weakness of the original contradiction they have cited.

Let's not let lose track of your original complaint that there is a contradiction between Galatians and Acts over when Paul initially met Barnabas. I believe Paul met Barnabas on his first post-conversion trip to Jerusalem and then Barnabas traveled with Paul on a later trip back to Jerusalem. Can you give me a good argument as why this scenario is contradicted by Galatians or Acts? Do you have an argument better than a complaint of why Luke didn't mention Barnabas on Paul's first trip to Jerusalem? If this is now your argument, why are you introducing it now when your earlier argument was a statement of error suggesting that Paul only met Peter and James in Jerusalem according to Acts.

Reasonable to whom? The errantist? The same problem. We already recognize that humans will contradict each other. Another passage in the Bible in which two authors talk about the same event(s) and disagree with each other? *shrug* No surprise. For us, the insertion of random years, the skipping of details, the conflicting dates are NOT a reasonable explanation.

Of course you don’t consider “skipping of details” as a reasonable explanation. You’re an atheist trying whatever you can to prove a contradiction. I would argue that an unbiased person understands that two people writing different accounts of the same event are going to cover different details.

Why don’t you do this: Find two people who have seen the same movie and ask each one independently to give you a brief synopsis of the plot. Do this 100 times and I am certain you will find that in at least 99 cases of the 100, you will get different details.

If you won't admit that two truthful accounts may contain different details, then the problem with agreeing on what is "reasonable" isn't because of the inerrantist bias. It's with the skeptic who wants to move the goal posts because they can not defend the number of contradictions they claim exist in the Bible.

The methodology I propose is that if one account has elements that do not align with the other account, it is contradictory. The same method you use in life reading Newspapers, and on-line blogs. :-)

Are you saying that there is never a reasonable explanation why two different 100% truthful accounts don't perfectly align? If that is not what you are implying, then we should admit your methodology is flawed and throw it out.

I like your suggestion that we should read parallel accounts from the Bible the same we would news from two different reporters. That would mean that we accept the fact that two independent writers may present different details (sometime in different order) and they may even talk about two events that happened in sequence without informing us about the amount of time between them (gasp!).

Dennis, Thank you for your patience. Hopefully you will get a chance to peruse this response, but if this has become long forgotten, I understand.

First of all, I am still looking for any answer to my question—reasonable to whom? The inerrantist? The skeptic? An unbiased person? Might I recommend you take Acts 9 and Galatians 1 & 2 to an unbiased person and see if they think these passages contradict?

No, my original point in the illustration of Paul going to Jerusalem was NOT, most certainly NOT when Barnabas was with him. That is only one of numerous details that are inaccurate in the account. Timing is the greater difficulty. (And I did not even get into the problem of who was pursuing him—the Jews or the Aretas’ representative.) I brought up this example, more because I wanted to discuss methodology, not the contradiction itself.

But if you insist…

(Out of curiosity, where did you get the notion that Paul lived in Damascus, according to Acts? I could not find that anywhere.)

I believe Paul met Barnabas on his first post-conversion trip to Jerusalem and then Barnabas traveled with Paul on a later trip back to Jerusalem. Can you give me a good argument as why this scenario is contradicted by Galatians or Acts? Do you have an argument better than a complaint of why Luke didn't mention Barnabas on Paul's first trip to Jerusalem?

You are claiming that Barnabas was on the first trip as well, and Luke does not mention this in Acts 9? Let’s look at this scenario:

According to Paul, he is converted and goes to Arabia. After three years he returns “again” to Damascus. (I usually grant that this implies he was in Damascus previously. Although Paul is not clear that he ever went to Damascus post-conversion, but pre-Arabia trip, that is a minor point, and unnecessary to bicker over.)

According to Paul, he then travels to Jerusalem for the first time, actually stays with Peter, and meets James. No other apostles. (You attempt to differentiate between an “apostle” and a “disciple.” Question—what differentiation does Paul use between the two? Hint: Paul never uses the word “disciple” in his writings.)

According to Paul, for the next 14 years, he traveled in Syria and Cilicia, preaching the Gospel, and the churches in Judea heard of this man who formerly persecuted them, and now preached the gospel, and they glorified God with Paul.

According to Paul, he then visits Jerusalem for a second time, and mentions Barnabas on this second journey.

You are proposing that Luke is referring to this second journey in Acts 9:25-27. Reading what Paul has declared in Gal. 1 & 2, does the defense of Barnabas in Acts 9:27 make any sense? Barnabas goes back 17 years (and yes, I know it could be 14 years) and only mentions Paul’s conversion experience and his activity in Damascus.

No mention to Peter, “Hey, Peter, remember when Paul stayed with you for two weeks?”

No mention to James, “Hey, James, remember when you met Paul?”

No mention of his work for 14 years preaching in Syria. No mention that the very people he was talking to (according to Paul) had heard of him and glorified God because of him. It’s like they all completely forgot what they had heard!!

This is “reasonable”? Not hardly. You want the best argument that this is a contradiction in timing? The fact that Christian apologists have danced jigs and written books attempting to align these accounts, and have come up with varying solutions, all of which are unconvincing to the skeptic.

Again, would you accept these explanations in another religion’s attempt to align their books? If not, why should we accept yours?

Reasonable to whom?

Let’s look at more methodology that you proposed—the claim that “when Paul” in Acts 9:26 means that it does not imply a direct sequence. Can you stay consistent in this methodology?

Would you further state that “when Paul” in Acts 13:12-14 does not imply a direct sequence? Or the “when Paul” in Acts 15:2 means that it was some, much later time, that Paul actually answered the question?

Or the “when Paul” in Acts 18:14 is at a second meeting with Gallio? Or the “when Paul” in Acts 19:6 was on a subsequent trip to Ephesus? First Paul heard about their predicament, and then, later returned to provide the Holy Spirit?

(See also Acts 23:6, 28:3 and 28:15)

Over and over and over we see “when Paul” means EXACTLY a direct sequence. One event immediately followed by another. This is what I mean by methodology. If we see it once, twice, three, four, five times, it is not reasonable to presume that we have established the author’s methodology and when we see it the sixth time can safely apply the same method—that it is one event followed by another?

Now, perhaps there is something in the original Greek, or some contextual clue, whereby you can indicate that this sixth time is an exception—that it is NOT one event followed by another. But in order to do that, we would need the method of what is normal, before looking to why this is an exception.

If you are claiming “when Paul” does not mean a direct sequence, how do you get around the fact that in numerous other situations, the author uses “when Paul” and it IS a direct sequence? Can you explain?

See, from my end, this appears to constantly reduce to “any possible explanation” or “any possible port in a storm” in an attempt to avoid coming up with a method which we can apply consistently and have consistent results.

In vs. 9:26, since there appears to be a problem “when Paul” is inferred to mean one thing. This explanation causes problems in the six other times the author says “when Paul” and is therefore abandoned.

You are frustrated by skeptics’ “moving the goalposts”? I am equally frustrated by inerrantists unwilling to stay consistent within their own methods.

Find two people who have seen the same movie and ask each one independently to give you a brief synopsis of the plot. Do this 100 times and I am certain you will find that in at least 99 cases of the 100, you will get different details.

Yep, a very human trait, to be sure. How…er….does this help your case that the Bible is any different? And in asking those 100 people, due to faulty memories, or bad eyesight, or interruptions, we are sure to get contradictions. Using the methodology of “any possible explanation” we can also explain all those contradictions, even 100 of them.

Yet I would think you agree with me that a Movie is a human creation, not a divine one. If we can use the “any possible explanation” or even “reasonable to the person who presumes inerrancy” and create an aligned account between 100 people recounting a human invention, what makes the same method unique or worthy of note when applied to the Bible?

It always amazes me, in the inerrancy debate, when apologists use human analogies for how various accounts can be contradictory. This only makes it MORE likely that similar explanations for the Bible are human attempts to align human accounts.

If you won't admit that two truthful accounts may contain different details, then the problem with agreeing on what is "reasonable" isn't because of the inerrantist bias.

Of course they can contain different details. But at what point do too many different details equal a contradiction? Surely you believe there are SOME accounts of something, somewhere that arise to a contradiction? (If not, sit in any court case, and you will see differing accounts very quickly.)

What methodology do YOU use, when hearing of two or more sides to a story, that you say, “Aha. That is a contradiction”?

Continuing with our example, we have a first-person account (Paul) that gives specific details as to events surrounding his conversion and trips to Jerusalem. We have a second account, obtained through hearsay (and possibly hearsay of hearsay of hearsay—we don’t know) that appears to be unknowledgeable as to the same events as stated by the first-person account.

Your explanation is that the second account knew of these events, but simply choose to not record them?

Why? What method can we come up with that can make that determination?

Let me try it another way—you claim (incorrectly) that I am trying whatever I can to prove a contradiction. Assume, for a moment that I am.

I propose that Matthew inserts a one week period of time after 27:33 and has Jesus hanging on the cross for one week. (I don’t really, of course.) Mark only has Jesus on the cross for a short period before dying. (Mark 15:44) Viola—by randomly inserting a period of time between sentences I have created a contradiction.

Do you believe, by my inserting time that is neither implied nor warranted, that I have created a contradiction, because of my bias? No? Then, equally, why you inserting time that is neither implied nor warranted remove a contradiction, because of YOUR bias?

Do you see how inserting time is neither a good way to add a contradiction, nor a good way to remove one? UNLESS, one can show, by demonstration, that it was deliberately the author’s intent. Merely grabbing on and hoping isn’t enough. And to show that intent, I am looking for the method by which the person is claiming that they are able to demonstrate this is how the author meant.

Surely being experienced in law you realize that a credible eyewitness is better than then consensus of 100 experts.

That’s the problem with credible eyewitnesses—they never seem to be around when you want ‘em! Understand, “credibility” is not merely an attempt to honestly portray the truth, but includes opportunity to observe, bias, prejudice, time to reflect, memory, etc.

One can testify as earnestly honest as possible and still be quite wrong, due to poor memory, inability to see, pre-conceptions, etc. See it all the time.

What “eyewitness” testimony are you referring to? Surely not Mark, he got his information from Peter. Not Matthew or Luke, they got their information from Mark. Not John, he has numerous disagreements with Mark/Matthew/Luke, so accepting him entails rejecting them. (And THAT Gospel was redacting by unknown editors.) Not Paul, he recounts no events of Jesus’ life.

And, we go back to our methodology—credible to whom? There are plenty of witnesses that I find credible or not, that juries, judges and other attorneys agree with me. Who makes the determination of credibility? The person that already believes it? What good is that?

Finally, I would note that even you use the words, “leaves the door open to the possibility…” which is exactly what I suspected—the only methodology used by an inerrantist.

What methodology do you use, in your every day life, to determine a contradiction exists?